Comments - devotion RecentComments

March30 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@Matthew:22:1-14 MANY ARE CALLED - Of those called, there are those who refuse, there are those who make light of (some of which who strike back at the messengers), those that accept, those who come but are irreverent or ill prepared. The first thing to clarify is that we are not talking about the bride or any portion thereof rejecting Christ, these are strictly guests talked about here. The wedding is going to happen regardless and will be well attended by a most appreciative crowd kjv@Revelation:19:7-9. We are told even of bride's maids not having enough oil for the wait in their lamps having the door shut on them kjv@Matthew:25:1-10. If these people are outside of the bride then we must consider who the bride is. Some would say the Gentile Church; who then are the guests from the highways? Some would say the Raptured Church; where then would Tribulation Israel fit in? Some would say Israel and with Old Testament reasoning; but, she would have to be dressed in the righteousness of the saints kjv@Jeremiah:3:14. Israel would give cause for many of the invited to reject the invitation or run out of oil in the wait. Truth is that we may not know exactly who/what (as in institution) the bride consists, but, we know of the bridegroom. If we are merely guests it is best for us to be dressed as a reverent guest and not ourselves as a bride or a party crasher. If it is the institution instead that we are to witness then we best be reverent to the institution as well so as not the upset the groom. The faith of our Lord is in the marriage made by the Father. He has given Himself wholly and unreservedly for Her. If we see Her as tarnished or unacceptable it is very likely that we know nothing of who she is or have mis-identified Her altogether.

September18 @ @ rRandyP comments: m[FaithOfJesus} kjv@Luke:16:19-31 A GREAT GULF - There are a great many that believe that if the evidence were strong enough their minds would be changed about the Gospel of Salvation. Perhaps a tormented soul back from the dead. Perhaps a comforted soul from Abraham's bosom. Truth be told, the mind only sees what it wants to see. Take the condition of Lazarus. We chose to see his suffering in this life as a reward for sin, a curse upon him, a proof of his idiocy. Take the rich man living sumptuously. Wealth and health are a sign of God's blessing upon him, that he is rewarded for his goodness, favor is upon him, that he is doing something right that Lazarus is not. Take the general concept of sickness and/or poverty, that if you are doing as God commands that these horrors will be kept from you. This is the way that we choose to see it. The problem with evidences and proofs is that there is always more needed. It is not a condition of the mind; it is a condition of the heart and what it is willing to hear and believe. There is plenty of evidence in Moses (his life, the Exodus he lead, the wilderness experience, the Law) and the prophets (their words, their works, their fulfillment, their reception, their establishment in the scriptures/history long after their decease) to be more than convinced of something much more than hand of man. Yet the mind does not go that direction. Even those that were their with Moses or Elijah or Jeremiah at the time, they had little conception of what was transpiring before their eyes and murmured and conspired and persecuted. The curiosity of this parable tends to draw us toward the after life side of the equation when we should rather be looking at the present living side of it; how we rationalize sickness and poverty and wealth and prominence etc...; how we testify against ourselves in the midst of divine movements and revelation. The five brethren are the many of us and this life we still enjoy is the only chance we have to resolve these conditions of our heart. The faith of our Lord is in this heart and in everything He has put forth past present and future to turn it from it's disbelieving ways. More important than knowing what happens to us after our death is how we come to perceive things in this life and learn to depend upon Him to cross the immediate vast gulf.

November18 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:8:42-47 UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH - You may have noticed that everything that Jesus is saying is being taken entirely the wrong way. It is as if He is not talking at all, they cannot hear it. It is not even logical point and counterpoint, it is logical point and outright bastardization. Why is it that His speech cannot be understood? How prevalent is this? We see His opponents doing this, do we see His allies doing this as well? Is it universal? Chances are yes! If we were to add back in the topic from the previous passage of believers/continuers being set free indeed, we may have a clue as to what our bondage largely consists of. He states that the lusts of our father we "will" do; the language suggests that it would be impossible not to do his (the Devil's) lusts unless He Himself (Jesus/Truth) has set us free. At the point of this passage no one has been set free yet. Can we say then at this specific time that no one is from the Father yet and that no one truly loves Jesus? Is there anyone on scene that clearly hears God's words? No; therefore they hear not because they are not yet of God. If this hypothesis is true it would mean that the faith of our Lord is standing utterly alone at this time a complete foreigner to both friend and foe looking forward to a time after the cross when friends one by one would be crossing over into the adoption of the sons of men. Now we should ask whether this same universal condition still exists? For this we must caution believers with the words of kjv@John:8:31-32 that it is not merely the belief in Jesus that sets us free but the continuing in His word as disciples that reveals the truth and then it is this revealed truth that sets us free. If this means free from the bondage of doing the lusts of our former father then we see that continuance toward discipleship must then come first. If this hypothesis is true then it would mean that the Lord stands with some looking out as near strangers at a field of potential masses whose chains have been lifted but have yet to trust and experience the continuance up from the cellars into the open light of discipleship. We must then again ask... are we hearing the word of Jesus so as to continue in it? Do we understand what He is really saying or are we making it out to whatever we want it to be? Are we bastardizing it? As to the points I have already hypothesized about our Lord, one would think "isn't this a terrible and lonely thing we are watching Him go through". To this we must ask "is this not why He came"? The faith of our Lord is in making a way for the completely detached to come unto their true Father. God is their Father, but they have sold themselves over to another. There is no other course for them out unless He purchase them back first. Now maybe we can hear His speech!

December21 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:18:28-40 TO THIS END - Apparently when you are breaking your own law by having a trial at night and coming to a judgment of condemnation in the same day it is important that you not break your own traditions of not dirtying your hands by going into a Gentile's house; it makes it all better. Apparently if you yourself do not have legal power to perform capital punishment it is okay to take him to someone that does; it is all right. John doesn't go into the false evidence and witness that the Sanhedrin itself trumped up, but apparently it too is okay as long as you don't sully your hands and your image by expressing concern over not missing the closing hours of the paschal festival. Aren't you glad that they thought this all through and got it to where they could murder God's Son without breaking their ceremonial traditions? Why should Pilate entertain this motion? Because they wouldn't have brought him had He not been what they said he was; you can take their word on that. Oh so Pilate doesn't find anything wrong with the man, but it is okay to offer him in a trade for a seditious robber? Did that come out of left field or what? Is it article ?#$& that says that it is lawful to trade an innocent man for a convict tried by Roman law if the Jews insist? What business does Rome have with a man who won't tell you directly that he is a king, with no army, with no intent of removing anyone from their throne, who has gone out of his way on several occasions not to present himself to the public as someone who would? Some would say that Pilate felt for Jesus but cowarded to the pressure of the Jews. WHat? Pilate (who has been tyrannical and utterly vicious to the Jews as recently as a few months ago on the temple stairs) and the Sanhedrin suddenly being buddy buddy should alert us to something politically motivated happening here in a big way. They are both trying to present themselves to the public (and to history) as having clean hands. Don't riot against me Jerusalem for well I pretended not to want to be involved in this when most vehemently I did. Don't riot against us thousands of followers because we did not kill Jesus, Jesus killed Himself by what He said to Pilate. This is why all the detail is given to public perception. Little did they know that it was going to be written about. A few weeks and all this messiness would be done with, so they thought. It was written in a time span where if the written testimony that we have was false that the many witnesses could have fought back, we would have historical evidence that these misrepresentations had been vigorously disputed.Truth is that Rome didn't think much of this little incident until it had stirred the people so that they had to destroy the Temple, burn the records and ransack the city a few decades latter. What we do have is our Apostles talking about it quite openly to the public in a tone that everyone else knew about it and accepted it; many were convicted by it. The words here of Jesus then take on deeper meaning when He says that He came into this world to "bare witness unto the truth" and everyone that is "of the truth" heareth His voice. Truth is not the perception portrayed of washing ones hands of the matter, nor is it of making it back to the festival in time, truth is why it is you feel the need to trip all over yourself and the law on the way to portraying yourself as innocent of a most guilty matter.Truth is proving man his nature so that then you can show them God's. The faith of our Lord remember is that this is all in the Father's hands. No it is not right what they are doing, but what else could be expected. How does this ever change unless the Son of God suffers this wrong and takes it in His flesh to the grave along with every other wrong so that He might raise up a people free of it's corruption. Born into to bare wittness, to this end completed.

December29 @ @ rRandyP comments: mFaithOfJesus kjv@John:20:24-31 BECAUSE THOU HAST SEEN - What would of happened with Thomas had Jesus not returned for Him? Thomas would have to come into his belief just like any other of us; by the testimony of others. The thing is that there are plenty of Thomas's out there that have their mind fixed that there is nothing in these testimonies to believe, that it is something that they will have to see and feel for themselves. Is Jesus obligated to return for them as well? The thing is that that don't really need to see and feel in so many other areas of their lives, why is it so important to them in this particular case? They will take another's word when it comes to politics. They will take another's word when it comes to economics, investments, history, future prediction, court testimony, science, global warming, etc... They will also swallow rumor and innuendo and false premise and distortion and murmuring and intimidation and unjust balance. Why is it not their intellectual creed in these cases? The point is that we try intellectually to be these things and to a certain respect we are, but the reality is that it is close to impossible to be this in the broadest respect. Truth is that we are inescapably made to rely upon the testimonies and opinions of others. Yes it is difficult and error prone and requires discernment; even trust. Yes others have their personal motives and view points and see the same event with dissimilar details. But for men like Thomas (well meaning though they think that they are) to say to the others "no, I won't allow your word even into my preliminary consideration" or "you all are liars" or "this is something so much different than what Jesus told us that would happen; I think you are all reaching" such is not much more than self inflating pride. So you won't believe until you see for yourself. Well where were you Thomas when the rest of us saw Him? How many times do you think Thomas that He has to come back when you just happen to show up? Is Jesus really obligated to meet you on your terms and with your objections? In a sense it is important for the over all record that there was dissent observed in the group, at least for us that long after would follow, but in Thomas's case it is merely a stroke of God's grace that he was given another opportunity to satisfy his hypocritical and prideful demands. What if Jesus had not come to any disciple? What if He had appeared to the common public or to Pilate and Ananias instead? Would that have changed the fact of our Lord's resurrection? The faith of our Lord is in the testimony of others testifying to the veracity of His word. He didn't even attempt to write it down Himself. He may be the only major world messianic figure that went about it this way. Such a defense would be more than proper in a court of law. Why would it not in the court of individual belief?